The Solutrean Hypothesis

/46 Comments/in /by

The Solutrean hypothesis of the first peoples to inhabit North America is getting positively respectable to the point that the Washington Post has deigned to publish a longish article on the topic (“Radical theory of first Americans places Stone Age Europeans in Delmarva 20,000 years ago“). The occasion is the publication of a book by Dennis Stanford, an anthropologist at  the Smithsonian Institute and main academic advocate for the hypothesis (Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture). The basic idea is that settlers from Southern Europe managed to get to the East Coast of North America around 22,000 years ago, making them the first Americans by about 7000 years.  The hypothesis is based on finding several stone tools dated from 16000-22000 years ago that resemble tools found at European sites of the same age.

The hypothesis is certainly not nailed down yet. “Stanford acknowledges that his evidence is scant. He calls the Solutrean hypothesis ‘a skeletal idea.’” Read more

Alan Dershowitz: Policing Jewish Opponents of a War with Iran

/123 Comments/in , , /by

Israel Firster and Iraq War architect Paul Wolfowitz addresses soldiers wounded fighting in Iraq.

Jews have always policed their own—a basic element of any successful group and a central idea behind the cultural group selection model of Judaism. A good example is the drama playing out now on the attempt to police Jews who are critical of Israel’s desire for a war with Iran. Media Matters, the leftist news organization whose main goal has been to attack Fox News, has hired MJ Rosenberg, the former AIPAC operative who is now a prominent critic of Israel, to beef up its foreign policy coverage. Rosenberg commits the sin of using the phrase “Israel Firster” to refer to people like Alan Dershowitz and the Israel Lobby generally. (Rosenberg did not invent this label. As discussed here, the phrase had been used long before by Wilmot Robertson, David Duke, and the Vanguard News Network.) As Rosenberg has noted, saying that AIPAC has dual loyalty is giving them credit for one more loyalty than they actually have.

Rosenberg’s argument bears quoting:

Right now, there is only one interest group in the United States that absolutely opposes any diplomacy to avoid war with Iran and which insists that the United States expressly state (as it has) that war with Iran is definitely “on the table.”

In fact, that interest group, AIPAC, actually got Congress to pass a bill, which President Obama signed, that bans any diplomacy with Iran without express approval of four Congressional committees in advance — as if AIPAC will ever let that happen.

Just read this AIPAC-drafted language that is now law:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT.-No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that-
(1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and
(2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations.

(d) WAIVER.-The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

Frankly, this makes me sick. Banning diplomacy almost guarantees war with Iran, a war that must not be fought.

I oppose war with Iran unless Iran attacks the United States directly. Period.

I do not want America to be dragged into a war that Netanyahu provokes and which the United States would then be dragged into. I favor diplomacy, unconditional diplomacy, with all issues on the table.

Another very ominous sign is that the Congressional forces advocating war have now settled on a weaker criterion for war—that Iran simply possess “the scientific knowledge and industrial means to build a nuclear bomb,” not necessarily actually build one or even intend to build one (LATimes: “Obama likely to resist pressure to further toughen Iran stance“). As Philip Giraldi, writing at Council for the National Interest, notes: “There are about 50 countries in the world that have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon if they chose to do so, making Iran far from unique but for its persistence as a thorn in the side of Israel and Israel’s powerful lobby in the United States.” The LATimes article notes that 38 senators also signed a resolution that the Obama administration not pursue containment of Iran, a policy that leaves a military strike the only realistic option. The pressure on Obama is intense, especialy with all the Republican candidates except Ron Paul eager to flog him for not doing enough for

Read more

Black Racial Privilege and White Displacement in Education in the New South Africa

/111 Comments/in , , /by

The old South African educational system was racist. The new system is now also racist just that now Whites are the group that are subject to racial discrimination. The new South Africa does not judge on merit, but on your race…. so the more things change, the more they stay the same.

If you wish to read a good overall view of education and race in South Africa, see the South African Institute of Race Relations.

There are multiple levels of racial bias in the educational system. Let’s begin with the one that is a hangover from the old apartheid system. Education in SA starts in the mother tongue and then before high school it switches over to English or Afrikaans. Thus native English or Afrikaans speakers have an advantage over non-English speakers. Thus to compensate , on a racial basis, even if all your education has been in English you are given a number of extra marks when you take exams.

This means that a bright Indian student can achieve or exceed 100% after the racial adjustments have been made. The adjustments can be substantial and are made on a proportional basis to your marks received.  According to the newspaper reports, the adjustment is limited to about 10%, but this is substantial when competing for places. Read more

The Conservative Revolution Then and Now: Ernst Jünger

/130 Comments/in , /by

Ernst Jünger, 1895-1998

Early in 1927 the Austrian poet Hugo von Hofmannsthal made a famous address to students at the University of Munich. He alluded to and deplored the historical separation in German society between the intellectual and political sphere, between “life” and “mind”. He deplored that German writing in the past had functioned in a vacuum and was “not truly representative nor did it establish a tradition” and was symptomatic of a crisis in civilization which had lost contact with life. In response, he referred to the “legions of seekers” throughout the country who were striving for the reestablishment of faith and tradition and whose aim was not freedom but “allegiance”. He concluded: “The process of which I am speaking is nothing less than a conservative revolution on such a scale as the history of Europe has never known.

Comparing this with the present day situation, when paleoconservative leaders like Paul Gottfried feel lucky to sell a thousand copies of a book, German conservatism was experiencing a period of unparalleled cultural, intellectual, and spiritual vitality as measured by literary engagement. Large numbers of conservative revolutionary political philosophers formed political clubs and organizations and swamped the periodical market with their pamphlets full of semi-political, semi-philosophical jargon. They found access to the “respectable” public, and became the heralds of conservative revolution. They represented an intelligentsia that had the ear of the people, in contrast to the leftist intelligentsia which was considered “Western” and “alien” by most. Read more

Armageddon Approaches

/650 Comments/in , /by

“An Israeli attack on Iran would create a disaster.” — Zbigniew Brzezinski

“The entire lake will become a killing field…the Gulf will run red with American blood.” — Military specialist Mark Gaffney.

Bombing Iran could be the final nail in the coffin of America—a decaying and morally bankrupt superpower where torture has been normalized and where the President is now free to kill anyone he chooses, anywhere in the world, who he happens to suspect is a terrorist.

Right now, Iran appears to be the object of universal detestation, at least among those who control the mainstream media and who are anxious to persuade the easily duped masses that Iran is a major threat to civilization. Read more

Gregory Rodriguez on the Arizona Ethnic Studies Law

/56 Comments/in , /by

It’s no surprise that LATimes Latino activist columnist, Gregory Rodriguez, does not like the Arizona ban on ethnic studies in high school (click here to let the Times know what you think). After mentioning Arizona’s “ruthless, racially charged campaign against illegal immigrants,” he tones it down a bit, saying he disapproves of the fact that the curriculum includes  Paulo Freire’s jargon-heavy Marxist Pedagogy of the Oppressed, describing it as “a bit much.”  But then he goes on to say that “I’m all for students being taught that their ethnic histories play a significant role in U.S. history.”

Right, but the problem is that the people teaching these courses hate Whites. And they love their own people and the cultural Marxist rhetoric fomented by authors like Friere. The curriculum also included Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, by Rodolfo Acuña which emphasizes the evil that Whites have inflicted on Mexicans and Native Americans in the past (see discussion here). Read more

Pat Buchanan Fired from MSNBC

/148 Comments/in , /by

We should all he outraged that Pat Buchanan has been fired by MSNBC. As he notes (“The New Blacklisting“; VDARE.com), his firing came after “after an incessant clamor from the left” resulting from the release of his book, Suicide of a Superpower. The problem is that Buchanan doesn’t accept the dogma that our multiracial/multicultural future is going to be just a wonderful place to live. As quoted by one of the clamorers, Media Matters, Buchanan describes the America of 2041 this way:

America’s gonna look very much like California right now. And what does that mean?

California is bankrupt. It’s bond rating is the lowest of any place. Los Angeles, half the people there don’t speak English as — in their own homes — 5 million people. And you’ve got all the problems of crimes. You’ve got a black-brown war among the underclass, as one sheriff described it, in the prisons and in the gangs. And people are leaving California. And it’s the old tax consumers are coming in.

Now, these are not bad or evil people. Even the ones who are illegal. They’re coming to work, many of them. They’re coming for a better life. But the truth is they are bankrupting the state of California because of that divide you mentioned between taxpayers and tax consumers. And what happens when all of America is like that, when every American city is like LA?

What’s so great about being on the left is that you don’t have to rebut your enemies’ ideas. Truth and the interests of Whites are irrelevant when up against the interests and moral claims of non-Whites. Here Buchanan is committing the cardinal sin of the new dispensation: Implying that there  are real differences between peoples and that a very large percentage of the newcomers are not particularly talented and are prone to sucking up government services. And apart from the economic consequences of the Third World invasion, I think it’s going to be way worse for Whites when they become a minority because they will be increasingly victimized by the coalition of the left that hates them so much now.  Not to mention the findings of all the research that multicultural societies are prone to conflict, political alienation, and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods like government-sponsored healthcare.  Read more